Through my long career, I've notice virtually no correlation between my pay and the utility of my position. And indeed, I've had one or two jobs like yours. Sadly for my bank book, I can only stand being useless for relatively short stretches.
I still reminisce about my lowest paying job, my first. It was probably the most enjoyable and satisfying. It was also useful, though perhaps not at the top of that list.
It's annoying that so many useless jobs pay so much. But even worse that it's so hard to find a position where being useful is even a possibility.
My experience is similar. I look at it a lot like insurance policies. For instance, my company once had a service contract with a software company that cost about a million a year. One time I audited that service contract, and found that they'd used it exactly ONCE the entire. A million dollar phone call.
But they're not going to cancel the contract, because they want the support in case they need it.
I doubt that top-paying jobs like CEO are undesirable to those people who have them as well as those who would like to have them. On the other hand all really shitty jobs pay nothing - that's true for hundreds of millions, maybe even billions of people worldwide. A >100k$ programmer office job in the US does not belong in the "shitty job" category, no matter how much someone complains online because they are bored while comfortably sitting in their chair waiting for the next big paycheck to arrive reliably.
That rule must have been made by one of those super-rich people grumbling about how unfair life treats them and how the government attempts to steal "their" money.
Top paying jobs like CEO are top paying because the supply of trusted people, who boards are willing to hand control over billions of assets to, is vanishingly small. Programming jobs are reasonably well paying because businesses are careful about who they hand their code over to, although not the extreme degree of CEO. And something like fry cook is low paying because those businesses are willing to hire just about anyone.
But we cannot completely discount the effects of desirability. If your employment options are fry cook or oil rig worker, most people would prefer fry cook and thus oil rig worker has considerably higher wages due to the aversion to the job, and therefore reduction in supply at the price point of fry cook. Of course, increased compensation can prompt people to look in alternative directions.
CEO pay is not just supply and demand. You cannot even tell what "supply" even is, because "CEO supply" is nothing that can be well defined. You could make a lot of people CEO from the 2nd and 3rd ranks who also have the experience and knowledge, or you can seek only people who already have been CEOs - which does not guarantee anything at all, because CEO success depends a lot on context and circumstances. CEO supply is extremely flexible based on psychology for one (who you are willing to accept for the role is extremely subjective and based on personal preferences), and can also very easily be changed through actions (whom do you give a chance to learn to lead, and how). So the possible "supply" of CEOs is decided on a whim to a large degree, based on subjectivity (even if it's attempted to be hidden by some "thorough search" - which uses those same subjective criteria and selection heuristics).
You misuse economic theory by simply using it to make unsubstantiatable claims pretending that it somehow proves anything as long as you use the right magic words from economic thinking.
It’s pretty easy to figure out. Typically there will be exactly one person the board is willing to trust. It doesn’t matter how they reached that conclusion.
Being the only person in the world deemed suitable for the task gives incredible leverage when demand is near infinite.
> You misuse economic theory by simply using it to make unsubstantiatable claims
It would appear that you’re simply overthinking this. We’re talking about basic supply and demand, not a complex economic theory. It is simply an observation of what people agree to. We call it basic because it doesn’t represent anything more.
I refer to what was written above. The only "thinking" I can see on your side is how to prolong a non-argument - you just throw out random stuff, going for quantity and endless repetition, but there is not a coherent recognizable thought. Nice try, but I'd say after your first reply it turned into trolling. You are pretty good at saying a lot without saying anything at all though, I give you that much.
If you don't understand my explanation you are welcome to ask questions. I also encourage you to refer to other sources on the internet that go into more detail that I ever could in a short comment. You don't have to assume someone is a troll just because a comment isn't perfectly eloquent.
CEO pay isn't "basic supply and demand" unless you generalize the concept to such an extent that it becomes worthless.
Board Member: "Why are you paying your brother $500k to be your assistant?. Surely an assistant shouldn't make that much money."
CEO: "I really want my brother to do it, and since I only have 1 brother it's just basic supply and demand."
You can basically frame any human interaction in terms of supply and demand, but it's not really useful to do so. And it's certainly not what most of us have in mind when we talk about "basic supply and demand".
> unless you generalize the concept to such an extent that it becomes worthless.
Worthless in what way? Supply and demand is far easier to write than this long-winded explanation I have ended up giving to explain what it means. That seems well worthwhile, at least when in company who understand the meaning of the term. It is not like it is some grand unified theory of economics, if that is what you were hoping for.
> You can basically frame any human interaction in terms of supply and demand
Absolutely. All interaction has some cost, and supply and demand observes the willingness of all parties to accept that cost. That is exactly what supply and demand is all about.
> And it's certainly not what most of us have in mind when we talk about "basic supply and demand"
What is it that most of you have in mind? Supply, by definition, is the quantity of a product available at any price. Demand, by definition, is the desire and willingness to pay a price. Supply and demand is simply the observation of both and how they interact with each other. I am honestly unsure of what else you could think it means?
This is just a form of supply and demand. More people want to do $desirable_job or $satisfying_job (and there's plenty of overlap), so you don't have to pay them as much, because there's always another person in line to take the position.
“Passion” careers are a great example of this. Many people would gladly save the planet or do art for free, so the pay in arts and environmental protection is really low.
I don't think the theory implies it's the only effect on salaries, only that it's a factor.
Obviously when the workers have very few or no alternatives, the effect will be minimal.
But I know people who dropped out of college courses that provided a good chance of a middle-class income for a career that fulfilled them more, despite paying like crap. So the effect exists.
> I still reminisce about my lowest paying job, my first. It was probably the most enjoyable and satisfying.
Weird. I share this experience. My first tech job was really great, I was constantly doing interesting things, actively making things better for everybody all the time, really like all my colleagues, it was part time, and I made a pittance.
I was on $100K for doing a similar amount of depressingly simple or "easy" work, while being surrounded by people who felt or at least appeared stuck.
It seems like a dream but I also got really demotivated and my sharp skills quickly became stale and then one day I realised I didn't care enough to upskill again.
The job became more about appearance and saying the right things, showing your face in the right meetings, and claiming recognition for other people's work.
I've now shelved that career. The money wasn't worth the feeling of guilt or missing out. I think the hardest part was knowing I was getting paid double than people who worked 3X harder.
As I continue my (relatively young as a 20-something year old) web development career, I occasionally look back at my KFC job I had during uni and end of school with great fondness.
I honestly really enjoyed that job - it was fun working with great people doing a job of the right level of complexity and mental stimulation.
In my career, I'd say the correlation is an inverse proportion. The more useful / needed I was the less I was paid and the other way around... It's curious. I'll have to put some thought into why this might be.
I still reminisce about my lowest paying job, my first. It was probably the most enjoyable and satisfying. It was also useful, though perhaps not at the top of that list.
It's annoying that so many useless jobs pay so much. But even worse that it's so hard to find a position where being useful is even a possibility.